site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   5578 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 3, 2025

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It seems to me that what Trump is doing has worked; both Panama and Canada have, for now, capitulated to his demands. In spite of all the smoke and confusion, I'm optimistic. If leftists hate Musk and Trump as much as Reddit indicates, then it's a safe bet that the Left is in for a bad time.

Please, someone check my apparent ignorance of the nuances of trade wars, and of economics more broadly. Suppose that Trump 'is successful in annexing Canada and Panama. What material benefit does this provide to the U.S.? I'm optimistic because young and smart people are eager to build the new world which has been promised. And what more American an expression of hope and opportunity than in the conquering of new land?

What material benefit does this provide to the U.S.?

Let me ask you this: what material benefits do you expect the US to obtain from having ~45m disenfranchised imperial subjects that we couldn't already obtain through normal trade and treaty arrangements?

What substantial benefits does US currently get from ruling over Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam? I would guess none.

This doesn't meet the effort standard for a toplevel post imo. No links, no analysis.

As far as I can tell nothing Canada or Mexico have agreed to is particularly meaningful. Mexico seems to have already had 10k troops on the border. And Canada's fentanyl czar isn't a win because we don't have a Canadian fentanyl problem. I thought the fentanyl stuff was supposed to be a pretext to renegotiate the trade agreements Canada and Mexico are supposedly screwing us on. That hasn't happened yet.

It's not meaningful because it's a demonstration intended to convey capability, with that capability to be used in a future round. It's no difference than a gorilla demonstrating its strength by jumping up and down and beating its chest or an impala leaping up in the air -- what does it meaningfully accomplish?

So what happened is that Trump proven that he has the domestic support to impose tariffs on a flimsy pretext and that no one in Congress will/can talk him out of it. He's proven that he that capability.

I think if anything it conveys he'll back down in exchange for small concessions to avoid hurting markets? Like he could have just said 'hey, commit to doing this trade deal or tariffs go on in a month'. Instead we got this.

It does create credibility. He's willing to eat the criticism and the bad press and enact the consequences, so it is known that he is not bluffing. In game terms, it's like showing up to a game of chicken with a 5-point restraint and a bashed-up car.

There was never going to be a tariff. Trump just needed Mexico and Canada to cooperate on migration and drugs. They’ve done so and will be more willing partners on other issues going forward as well.

Same for Colombia. Same for Panama.

And, sorry, but there won’t be any conquering of new lands either.

Canada didn't capitulate. They reannounced the same $1.3 billion border security package they already announced in December, allowing Trump to declare victory.

Trump got the same deal by going full psycho that he already got by speaking quietly and carrying a big stick, except that some of the backchat from the noise he was making cost his pal Elon a $100 million Ontario government contract.

On a scale of kayfabe where SpaceX is 0 and WWE is 100, the Canada/Mexico tariff rows have been about 80, and the Colombia row north of 90.

I mean, going off Trudeau

I just had a good call with President Trump. Canada is implementing our $1.3 billion border plan — reinforcing the border with new choppers, technology and personnel, enhanced coordination with our American partners, and increased resources to stop the flow of fentanyl. Nearly 10,000 frontline personnel are and will be working on protecting the border.

In addition, Canada is making new commitments to appoint a Fentanyl Czar, we will list cartels as terrorists, ensure 24/7 eyes on the border, launch a Canada- U.S. Joint Strike Force to combat organized crime, fentanyl and money laundering. I have also signed a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl and we will be backing it with $200 million.

Proposed tariffs will be paused for at least 30 days while we work together.

Emphasis mine. Yes, the $1.3B border plan is old(ish) news. There are additional commitments.

It's a cold and dreary Monday afternoon in Ottawa. The nation is awash in a newfound wave of pride and determination, yet there is an unmistakable fear in the eyes of every citizen. Lame duck prime minister Justin Trudeau enters the situation room with his closest aides and allies. The prime minister takes a deep breath as he awaits the call. The prosperity of his people hangs in the balance. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs could vanish by the end of the week. The phone rings. The unmistakable voice of the orange man in the White House booms out of the speaker. Will he demand an anschluss?

"Mr. President, these tariffs will lead to needless suffering and destruction. Is there any way we can set this aside for the moment?"

"Fentanyl is a big problem Justin. Hire someone to work on that and you've got a deal."

Listing cartels as terrorist organizations is actually a big deal. It enables the government to aggressively track money.

It's widely suspected that payments from the cartels to Chinese chemical companies are being laundered through Canadian real estate.

I don't think Canadian government policy towards drug cartels depends on whether it calls them terrorists or not. The way you deal with a sophisticated, wealthy, armed criminal organisation that you actually care about stopping is the same way you deal with a sophisticated, wealthy terrorist organisation that you actually care about stopping.

But the terrorist designation activates specific regulations in the financial system. Sure, they could pass new laws and regulations to do the same thing. But this does have an impact on it's own.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats